Why do people reject science? Researchers shed new light on the topic.

[Boston tiger]

What about climate change ? Are both sides being scientific or are they both cherry picking ? what's the scoop

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

What about climate change ? Are both sides being scientific or are they both cherry picking ? what's the scoop

Scientists the world over declare climate change a reality.

The other side, whoever they are, do not.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Looks like your on the wrong thread mate. This board is for serious scientific discussion,if you'd like to discuss conspiracy,take it there.

this is the perfect thread for it. the topic is why do people reject science, and he referred to your belief that the world is flat. it's a great example of people rejecting science, so it's a legitimate point of discussion.

 

[darthbards]

this is the perfect thread for it. the topic is why do people reject science, and he referred to your belief that the world is flat. it's a great example of people rejecting science, so it's a legitimate point of discussion.

No,there currently is a thread running on flat holographic universes,that the last I checked,was where the earth is housed. The flat universe/earth theory is theory is very much on the scientific table. Science hasn't rejected this theory.

 

[Long Live HFC]

No,there currently is a thread running on flat holographic universes,

2 points here.

firstly, you clearly did not understand the recent paper to which you refer. i even tried to point it out to you that the actual authors disagree with how you portray their research or what you think it means. the author stated in no uncertain terms that this ~15 billion-year-old universe exists in 3 spatial dimensions.

secondly, the so-called flat (early) universe hypothesis is quite separate to the earth being flat argument you are having on the conspiratard board. even in your alleged flat universe, the earth remains a (relative) globe. and your denial of this objective, demonstrable fact is what led us here, to referencing you in a discussion about why people reject science. i understand you might not like that label, but that's what you get for preaching bollocks.

The flat universe/earth theory is theory is very much on the scientific table. Science hasn't rejected this theory.

everybody that matters has rejected the flat earth hypothesis (it's not a theory as it doesn't explain jack s**t). it is not being researched. it is not being debated. it is not raising its idiotic head anywhere except on the internet.

 

[darthbards]

2 points here.

firstly, you clearly did not understand the recent paper to which you refer. i even tried to point it out to you that the actual authors disagree with how you portray their research or what you think it means. the author stated in no uncertain terms that this ~15 billion-year-old universe exists in 3 spatial dimensions.

secondly, the so-called flat (early) universe hypothesis is quite separate to the earth being flat argument you are having on the conspiratard board. even in your alleged flat universe, the earth remains a (relative) globe. and your denial of this objective, demonstrable fact is what led us here, to referencing you in a discussion about why people reject science. i understand you might not like that label, but that's what you get for preaching bollocks.



everybody that matters has rejected the flat earth hypothesis (it's not a theory as it doesn't explain jack s**t). it is not being researched. it is not being debated. it is not raising its idiotic head anywhere except on the internet.

That is one paper of which their are others suggesting a holographic universe,as there are on simulation hypothesis,as there are on holographic flat black holes.

There are far to many holes in our current theories to discount others. Even scientists at CERN are now concerned that our theories regarding QM are completely wrong, and may need to be re written.

I consider the perceivabiliy of the human mind very important when forming my own opinions.

You can feel free to point out whatever you wish,you are not 'god' though.Whilst you are free to have an opinion,I have every right to look further than the opinion you have expressed. Opinions though do not make me angry.

I have zero time for Hereiophobia in science. All bets are on in my opinion. I feel our knowledge of our universe,and even our own planet is so poor,we have not yet earned the right to dismiss anything.

 

[Long Live HFC]

I feel our knowledge of our universe,and even our own planet is so poor,we have not yet earned the right to dismiss anything.

hence why you are being referenced in this thread.

 

[darthbards]

hence why you are being referenced in this thread.

I also believe humans are exceptionally arrogant.
Research will find us the discoveries we are still so far from obtaining.
Arrogance and ego I have very little interest in.

 

[Long Live HFC]

I also believe humans are exceptionally arrogant.
Research will find us the discoveries we are still so far from obtaining.
Arrogance and ego I have very little interest in.

you might believe that, but in reality it's likely your preoccupation with pseudoscience/unlikely conspiracies is driven (at least partially) by your ego. at least, that's what current psychological research indicates.

 

[darthbards]

you might believe that, but in reality it's likely your preoccupation with pseudoscience/unlikely conspiracies is driven (at least partially) by your ego. at least, that's what current psychological research indicates.

I think we have both made our feelings known on this matter and believe there are more appropriate threads for further discussions.
Your a theories man,and I'm more into an open minded approach until facts are further established.

 

[Long Live HFC]

I think we have both made our feelings known on this matter and believe there are more appropriate threads for further discussions.

im banned from there, so will be staying here.

Your a theories man,and I'm more into an open minded approach until facts are further established.

scientific theories are based on facts. theories are what explain facts. so yes, i am a theories man (but not in how you're attempting to use it) because i realise that scientific theories (that explain facts) are the best explanations currently available to describe reality. maybe you meant to say "hypothesis man".

"keeping an open mind" to the point where you only ever get the wrong answer isn't actually keeping an open mind at all, it's a deliberate denial of the facts. there is no "keeping an open mind" re the general shape of our planet, given the insurmountable evidence.

 

[darthbards]

im banned from there, so will be staying here.



scientific theories are based on facts. theories are what explain facts. so yes, i am a theories man (but not in how you're attempting to use it) because i realise that scientific theories (that explain facts) are the best explanations currently available to describe reality. maybe you meant to say "hypothesis man".

"keeping an open mind" to the point where you only ever get the wrong answer isn't actually keeping an open mind at all, it's a deliberate denial of the facts. there is no "keeping an open mind" re the general shape of our planet, given the insurmountable evidence.

Insurmountable evidence is still not proof,it's just not enough for me especially when put into consideration with our lack of understanding in a universal sense,and what is currently perceivable to the human mind. Scope and context are very important in my scientific love.
There are threads here on holographic universes where people are discussing multiverse and sims,and the possibility they would be 'flat'.
There is also a thread on flat holographic black holes.
Anyway this is supposed to be a more community based board. I feel this thread is being derailed,and out of respect to our scientific community,I think this discussion should be held elsewhere.

When I've done a little more research in regards to scientists at CERN now having concerns with the accuracy of quantum theory,I may start a thread on that,which could be an excellent place to hold discussions about the prospects of having to re consider,or re write some theories in this very exciting,new era science may be finding itself.

 

[GreyCrow]

Insurmountable evidence is still not proof

It should do until something better comes along surely? Keeping an open mind is a good thing, but don't keep it open so that things go out.

In February 2002, Donald Rumsfeld, the then US Secretary of State for Defence, stated at a Defence Department briefing: 'There are known knowns. ... There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns.

 

[darthbards]

It should do until something better comes along surely? Keeping an open mind is a good thing, but don't keep it open so that things go out.

Of course what we currently know is important,and it will be a great tool in discovering more.
We can't escape from the fact that our knowledge of the universe and even our own planet is very poor, and there are some huge holes in many of our current theories.
Like I've said,I think science is about to enter the most exciting period in our history,an exciting period that may even shock and amaze us.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Insurmountable evidence is still not proof...

in a discussion re the shape of our planet, yes it is.

it's just not enough for me...

i realise that; this is why you're a topic in this thread.

 

[Frank Bunn]

scientific theories are based on facts. theories are what explain facts. so yes, i am a theories man (but not in how you're attempting to use it) because i realise that scientific theories (that explain facts) are the best explanations currently available to describe reality. maybe you meant to say "hypothesis man".

Do scientific theories describe reality or are they merely models of reality that are useful. And what is 'fact' but a metaphor upon a metaphor based on human linguistic categorisation. Even mathematical 'facts' are based on human conventions. Poincaré worked out that mathematical systems can be internally consistent but conflict with each other. Like which one of Euclidian, Lobachevsky or Riemann geometry is 'true'?

Hawking applies this to a view of what reality in different universes might be like but I think it can be applied when thinking just about our own universe. Physicists comb the world for patterns that fit their preferred models.

We seem to be at a critical point in the history of science, in which we must alter our conception of goals and of what makes a physical theory acceptable. It appears that the fundamental numbers, and even the form, of the apparent laws of nature are not demanded by logic or physical principle. The parameters are free to take on many values and the laws to take on any form that leads to a self-consistent mathematical theory, and they do take on different values and different forms in different universes.

So to the argument above about whether the earth is flat or round? Neither are 'true'. We can use a flat or round earth model according to what is useful at the time. If I'm driving down the highway the flat earth model is sufficient. The guy who designed my GPS needs to use the round earth model. There may be circumstances where a model that describes our three dimensional world as an image of two dimensional processes is more useful.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Do scientific theories describe reality or are they merely models of reality that are useful.

they describe reality which makes them useful.

And what is 'fact' but a metaphor upon a metaphor based on human linguistic categorisation. Even mathematical 'facts' are based on human conventions. Poincaré worked out that mathematical systems can be internally consistent but conflict with each other. Like which one of Euclidian, Lobachevsky or Riemann geometry is 'true'?

yawn. if you're interested in pointless conversations about how we can't ever really know anything, i'm not the one to have it with.

So to the argument above about whether the earth is flat or round? Neither are 'true'. We can use a flat or round earth model according to what is useful at the time. If I'm driving down the highway the flat earth model is sufficient. The guy who designed my GPS needs to use the round earth model. There may be circumstances where a model that describes our three dimensional world as an image of two dimensional processes is more useful.

uh huh, and if i lie in a square hole then the oblong planetary model is sufficient if i close my eyes then the perpetual night model is sufficient.

the user i was discussing this with thinks that there's a worldwide conspiracy to fool the masses into believing the planet is round, that the photos of earth from space are fake, and that there's a huge, game-of-thrones-like ice wall guarded by 'them' at either end of this flate plane. it's not a metaphor. it's not 'it is unnecessary in everyday life to consider the roundness of the planet'. it's just 100% pseudoscientific bullshit.

 

[Frank Bunn]

they describe reality which makes them useful.

I disagree. Reality is the interaction between our human consciousness and 'what is out there'. Scientific theories are human made models of what is out there. We can't see the internal structure of an atom; we make a model of it. We can't see spacetime; we make a model of it. We keep the scientific models that are useful and discard those that don't make useful predictions.

yawn. if you're interested in pointless conversations about how we can't ever really know anything, i'm not the one to have it with

That's cool. I find these questions interesting even if you don't. But don't go making definitive statements about reality based on your blinkered approach that resembles that of an accountant than a open minded scientist or philosopher seeking knowledge.

 

[Long Live HFC]

I disagree. Reality is the interaction between our human consciousness and 'what is out there'. Scientific theories are human made models of what is out there.

scientific theories are human-made explanations that describe reality. that any lifeform in the universe is (likely) bound by its senses and consciousness in this context is hardly relevant, novel or instructive; darthbards' shitty opinions are just as bound by these limitations as any demonstrable facts to which he objects. there has to be a hierarchy of knowledge otherwise absolutely nothing has any value. therefore, within the contraints of our knowledge/senses/consciousness his ideas are still ******* stupid. otherwise, we might as well discuss how the hawks have won the previous 150 premierships because the historical record is just the opinion of someone's consciousness.

We can't see the internal structure of an atom; we make a model of it. We can't see spacetime; we make a model of it. We keep the scientific models that are useful and discard those that don't make useful predictions.

we can't see the wind, therefore 911 was an inside job (i'm referring to darth's "methodology" here, not yours).

That's cool. I find these questions interesting even if you don't.

i'm not saying they're necessarily uninteresting, i am saying that such questions are irrelevant within real-world contexts like "what general shape is Earth?".

 

[sataris]

If the earth is flat, I want to go sit on the corner and gaze over the edge.

We even went to space and took photos of it...

 

[darthbards]

If the earth is flat, I want to go sit on the corner and gaze over the edge.

We even went to space and took photos of it...

Might be a tad hard to look over the edge of something that's being projected as round when your inside the projection. And of course you can take images of all the planets being round,when your actually observing them. Particles change states when observed,we know that.The universe is made up of particle,much of which we currently know very little about.

There is a thread for holographic universes if you want to observe that,and holographic flat black holes if you want to delve even further. There is also a thread on simulation theory.

If you want to 'look over the edge',go to the conspiracy board. This is a science forum.

 

[sataris]

Might be a tad hard to look over the edge of something that's being projected as round when your inside the projection. And of course you can take images of all the planets being round,when your actually observing them. Particles change states when observed,we know that.The universe is made up of particle,much of which we currently know very little about.

There is a thread for holographic universes if you want to observe that,and holographic flat black holes if you want to delve even further. There is also a thread on simulation theory.

If you want to 'look over the edge',go to the conspiracy board. This is a science forum.

I don't even know where to begin with this.

The earth does not exist in a super position of states and collapse into one or the other when it's observed / photographed.

 

[darthbards]

I don't even know where to begin with this.

The earth does not exist in a super position of states and collapse into one or the other when it's observed / photographed.

We have observed less than 5% of what makes up our universe. So when your going to begin,you should probably start round about there.

On topic in a sense,and I've stated this previous. Science could be entering its most exciting and progressive era in mankinds history. There is a huge opportunity to get more people turning to science rather than away during these exciting times. Young people of today,sciences future,have no interest in fuddy duddies whatsoever. We need to teach them the importance of scientific method,and then give them great scope to discover the thing we have yet to have been able to discover ourselves.

 

[Frank Bunn]

scientific theories are human-made explanations that describe reality. that any lifeform in the universe is (likely) bound by its senses and consciousness in this context is hardly relevant, novel or instructive; darthbards' shitty opinions are just as bound by these limitations as any demonstrable facts to which he objects. there has to be a hierarchy of knowledge otherwise absolutely nothing has any value. therefore, within the contraints of our knowledge/senses/consciousness his ideas are still ******* stupid. otherwise, we might as well discuss how the hawks have won the previous 150 premierships because the historical record is just the opinion of someone's consciousness.

It depends what you mean by 'in this context'. If you mean whether you will fall off the earth if you walk far enough then I agree. But there are wider points to be had in a discussion of science. Science has to create models when our senses cannot perceive the things that are being described.

There is a schism in science between whether these models describe reality - or are merely 'stories' that are understandable by our senses and consciousness, and are useful.

Physicist, Neil Gershenfeld thinks the latter.

'The most common misunderstanding about science is that scientists seek and find truth. They don't, they make and test models. Making sense of anything means making models that can predict outcomes and accommodate observations. Truth is a model'.

But this does not mean that alternative scientific models are the same as different opinions. Scientific models are only as good as whether their predictions are successful.

i'm not saying they're necessarily uninteresting, i am saying that such questions are irrelevant within real-world contexts like "what general shape is Earth?".

I reckon such questions are irrelevant within real-world contexts like "what general shape is Earth?" because science has long since answered those questions. But how about questions such as "what shape is an atom?" What is gravity? What is time? Why is there something and not nothing? Etc.

I am open minded about such questions and what the various models of reality might contribute to our understanding. But getting back to the OP of this thread, colour me unimpressed by a meta analysis by psychologists of our understanding of climate science. That is not science.

 

[Frank Bunn]

I don't even know where to begin with this.

The earth does not exist in a super position of states and collapse into one or the other when it's observed / photographed.

Prove it!